Two days afterwards, in the debate on the message, Mr. Fox pronounced the condemnation and execution of the King to be munication from his Majesty which related | Monk," that he acquiesced in the into the late detestable scene exhibited in a sult so meanly put upon the illustrious neighbouring country, he could not suppose corpse of Blake, under whose auspices there were two opinions in that House; he and command he had performed the knew they were all ready to declare their abhorrence of that abominable proceeding." most creditable services of his life." This story, Mr. Rose says, rests upon -(p. 21.) the authority of Neale, in his History of the Puritans. This is the first of many blunders made by Mr. Rose upon this particular topic: for Anthony Wood, in his Fasti Oxoniensis, enume-"an act as disgraceful as any that history rating Blake among the bachelors, says, recorded: and whatever opinions he might "His body was taken up, and, with at any time have expressed in private con- others, buried in a pit in St. Margaret's 181 versation, he had expressed none certainly churchyard adjoining, near to the back door of one of the prebendaries of Westminster, in which place it now remaineth, enjoying no other monument but what is reared by its valour, which time itself can hardly efface. difficulty is to find how the denial of Mr. Rose affects Mr. Fox's assertion. Mr. Rose admits, that Blake's body was dug up by an order of the King, and does not deny that it was done with the acquiescence of Monk. But if this be the case, Mr. Fox's position, that Blake was insulted, and that Monk acquiesced in the insult, is clearly made out. Nor has Mr. Rose the shadow of an authority for saying that the corpse of Blake was reinterred with great decorum. in that House on the justice of bringing kings to trial: revenge being unjustifiabie, and punishment useless, where it could not operate either by way of prevention or example; he did not view with less detestation the injustice and inhumanity that had been committed towards that unhappy monarch. Not only were the rules of criminal justice-rules that more than any other ought to be strictly observed-violated with respect to him; not only was he tried and condemned without any existing law, to which he was personally amenable, and even contrary to laws that did actually exist, but the degrading circumstances of his imprisonment, the unnecessary and insulting asperity with which he had been treated, the total want of republican magnanimity in the whole transaction (for even in that House it could be no offence to say, that there might be such a thing as magnanimity in a republic,) added every aggravation to the inhumanity and injustice." But the Kennet is silent upon the subject. We have already given Ser- zsti, fre That Mr. Fox had held this language in the House of Commons, Mr. Rose knew perfectly well, when he accused Mr. Rose, who, we must say, on all that gentleman of approving the murder of the King of France. Whatever occasions through the whole of this be the faults imputed to Mr. Fox, book, makes the greatest parade of his duplicity and hypocrisy were never accuracy, states, that the bodies of among the number; and no human Cromwell, Ireton, and Blake, were taken being ever doubted but that Mr. Fox, in this instance, spoke his real sentiments: but the love of Sir Patrick Hume is an overwhelming passion; and no man who gives way to it can ever say into what excesses he may be hurried. Non simul cuiquam conceditur, amare et sapere. up at the same time; whereas the fact The next point upon which Serjeant Heywood attacks Mr. Rose, is that of General Monk. Mr. Fox says of they prove that such a writer will be exact only when he thinks the occasion of importance; and, as he himself is the only judge of that importance, it is necessary to examine his proofs in every instance, and impossible to trust him anywhere. Mr. Rose remarks, that, in the weekly paper entitled Mercurius Rusticus, No. 4, where an account is given of the disiaterment of Cromwell and Ireton, not a syllable is said respecting the corpse of Blake. This is very true; but the reason (which does not seem to have occurred to Mr. Rose) is, that Bake's corpse was not touched till six months afterwards. This is really a little too much. That Mr. Rose should quit his usual pursuits, erect himself into an historical critic, perch upon the body of the dead lion, impugn the accuracy of one of the greatest, as well as most accurate men of his time, and himself be guilty of such gross and unpardonable negligence, looks so very much like an insensibility to shame, that we should be loth to characterise his conduct by the severe epithets which it appears to merit, and which we are quite certain Sir Patrick, the defendee, would have been the first to bestow upon it. The next passage in Mr. Fox's work, objected to, is that which charges Monk, at the trial of Argyle, "with baving produced letters of friendship and confidence to take away the life of pobleman, the zeal and cordiality of whose co-operation with him, proved by such documents, was the chief ground of his execution." This accusation, says Mr. Rose, rests upon the Bole authority of Bishop Burnet; and yet no sooner has he said this, than he telsus, Mr. Laing considers the bishop's authority to be confirmed by Cunningbar and Baillie, both contemporary writers. Into Cunningham or Baillie, Mr. Rose never looks to see whether not they do really confirm the authority of the bishop; and so gross is his negligence, that the very misprint from Mr. Laing's work is copied, and paze 431. of Baillie is cited, instead of 451. If Mr. Rose had really taken the truable of referring to these books, all doubt of the meanness and guilt of Monk must have been instantly removed. "Monk was moved," says Baillie, "to send down four or five of Argyle's letters to himself and others, promising his full compliance with them, that the King should not reprieve him.” -(Baillie's Letters, p. 451.) "He endeavoured to make his defence," says Cunningham; "but, chiefly by the discoveries of Monk, was condemned of high treason, and lost his head.". Cunningham's History, Vol. 1. p. 13. Would it have been more than common decency required, if Mr. Rose, who had been apprised of the existence of these authorities, had had recourse to them, before he impugned the accuracy of Mr. Fox? Or is it possible to read, without some portion of contempt, this slovenly and indolent corrector of supposed inaccuracies in a man, not only so much greater than himself in his general nature, but a man who, as it turns out, excels Mr. Rose in his own little arts of looking, searching, and comparing; and is as much his superior in the retail qualities which small people arrogate to themselves, as he was in every commanding faculty to the rest of his fellow-creatures ? Mr. Rose searches Thurloe's State Papers; but Serjeant Heywood searches them after Mr. Rose: and, by a series of the plainest references, proves the probability there is that Argyle did receive letters which might have materially affected his life. To Monk's duplicity of conduct may be principally attributed the destruction of his friends, who were prevented, by their confidence in him, from taking measures to secure themselves. He selected those among them whom he thought fit for trial-sat as a commissioner upon their trial — and interfered not to save the lives even of those with whom he had lived in habits of the greatest kindness. "I cannot," says a witness of the most unquestionable authority, "I cannot forget before they were removed to the Tower, one passage that I saw. Monk and his wife, while they were yet prisoners at Lambeth House, came one evening to the garden, and caused them to be brought down, only to stare at them; which was such a barbarism, for that man who had betrayed so many poor men to death and misery, that never hurt him. but had honoured him, and trusted their lives and interests with him, to glut his bloody eyes with beholding them in their bondage, as no story can parallel the inhumanity of."-(p. 83.) Hutchinson's Memoirs, p. 378. CH light one. Burnet was almost eighteen This, however, is the man whom Mr. Fox, at the distance of a century and a half, may not mark with infamy, without incurring, from the candour of Mr. Rose, the imputation of republican principles;- -as if attachment to monarchy could have justified, in Monk. the coldness, cruelty, and treachery of his character, as if the historian became the advocate, or the enemy of any form of government, by praising the good, or blaming the bad men which it might produce. Serjeant Heywood sums up the whole article as follows: that the general imputation against his "Having examined and commented upon the evidence produced by Mr. Rose, than being true; and we shall hereafter prove, which it is hardly possible,' he says, 'to conceive that stronger could be formed in any case, to establish a negative,' we now safely assert, that Mr. Fox had fully informed himself upon the subject before he wrote, and was amply justified in the condemnation of Monk, and the consequent severe censures upon him. It has been already demonstrated, that the character of Monk had been truly given, when of him he said, 'the army had fallen into the hands of one, than whom a baser could not be found in its lowest ranks.' The transactions between him and Argyle for a certain period of time, were such as must naturally, if not necessarily, have led them into an epistolary correspondence; and it was in exact conformity with Monk's character and conduct to the regicides, that he should betray the letters written to him, in order to destroy a man whom he had, in the latter part of his command in Scotland, both feared and hated. If the fact of the production of these letters had stood merely on the testimony of Bishop Burnet, we have seen that nothing has been produced by Mr. Rose and Dr. Campbell to impeach it; on the contrary, an inquiry into the authorities and documents they have cited strongly confirms it. But, as before observed, it is a surprising instance of Mr. Rose's indolence, that he should state the question to depend now, as it did in Dr. Campbell's time, on the bishop's authority solely. But that authority is, in itself, no This, we think, is conclusive enough: but we are happy to be enabled, out of our own store, to set this part of the question finally to rest, by an authority which Mr. Rose himself will probably admit to be decisive. - Sir George Mackenzie, the great Tory lawyer of Scotland in that day, and Lord Advocate to Charles II. through the greater part of his reign, was the leading counsel for Argyle on the trial alluded to.-In 1678, this learned person, who was then Lord Advocate to Charles, published an elaborate treatise on the criminal law of Scotland, in which, when treating of Probation, or Evidence, he observes, that missive letters, not written, but only signed by the party, should not be received in evidence; and immediately adds, "And yet, the Marquis of Argyle was convict of treason, UPON LETTERS WRITTEN BY HIM TO GENERAL MONK; these letters as the res proved per comparationem literarum; which were very hard in other cases," &c.-(Mackenzie's Criminals, first edit. p. 524. Part II. tit. 25. § 3.) Now this, we conceive, is nothing more nor less than a solemn professional report of the case, and leaves just as little room for doubt as to the fact, as if the criginal record of the trial had been recovered. being only subscribed by him, and not | isters, Buckingham, Ashley Cooper, holograph, and the subscription being and Lauderdale, should be brought to be parties to it:-"Can there be a stronger proof (asks Serjeant Heywood), that they were ignorant of the same treaty made the year before, and remaining then in force?" Historical research is certainly not the peculiar talent of Mr. Rose; and as for the official accuracy of which he is so apt to boast, we would have Mr. Rose to remember, that the term official accuracy Mr. Rose next objects to Mr. Fox's has of late days become one of very assertion, that "the King kept from his ambiguous import. Mr. Rose, we can Cabal Ministry the real state of his see, would imply by it the highest connection with France- and from possible accuracy-as we see office pens some of them the secret of what he was advertised in the window of a shop, by peased to call his religion ;" and Mr. way of excellence. The public reports Fox doubts whether to attribute this of those, however, who have been conduct to the habitual treachery of appointed to look into the manner in Charles, or to an apprehension, that his which public offices are conducted, by ministers might demand for themselves no means justify this usage of the term; some share of the French money;-and we are not without apprehenwhich he was unwilling to give them. sions, that Dutch politeness, CarthaIn answer to this conjecture, Mr. Rose ginian faith, Baotian genius, and official quotes Barillon's Letters to Lewis XIV. accuracy, may be terms equally current to show that Charles's ministers were in the world; and that Mr. Rose may, faly apprised of his money transactions without intending it, have contributed with France. The letters so quoted to make this valuable addition to the were, however, written seven years after mass of our ironical phraseology. the Cabal Ministry were in power-for Speaking of the early part of James's Barillon did not come to England as reign, Mr. Fox says, it is by no means ambassador till 1677—and these letters certain that he had yet thoughts of were not written till after that period. obtaining for his religion any thing more Poor Sir Patrick-It was for thee and than a complete toleration; and if Mr. thy defence this book was written!!!! Rose had understood the meaning of Mr. Fox has said, that from some of the French word établissement, one of the ministers of the Cabal the secret of his many incorrect corrections of Mr. Charles's religion was concealed. It Fox might have been spared. A system was known to Arlington, admitted by of religion is said to be established when Mr. Rose to be a concealed Catholic; it is enacted and endowed by Parliawas known to Clifford, an avowed ment; but a toleration (as Serjeant Catholic: Mr. Rose admits it not to Heywood observes) is established when have been known to Buckingham, it is recognised and protected by the though he explains the reserve, with supreme power. And in the letters of espect to him, in a different way. He Barillon, to which Mr. Rose refers for not, however, attempted to prove the justification of his attack upon Mr. that Lauderdale or Ashley were con- Fox, it is quite manifest that it is in ked;-on the contrary, in Colbert's this latter sense that the word établisseLetter of the 25th August, 1670, cited ment is used; and that the object in or Mr. Rose, it is stated that Charles view was, not the substitution of the proposed the traité simulé, which Catholic religion for the Established od be a repetition of the former one Church, but merely its toleration. In in all things, except the article relative the first letter cited by Mr. Rose, James the King's declaring himself a says, that "he knew well he should Catholic, and that the Protestant Min-never be in safety unless liberty of con not be more fully established. The French science for them should be fully esta- | would inflame the people against the We do not consider those obscrvations of Serjeant Heywood to be the most fortunate in his book, where he attempts to show the republican tendency of Mr. Rose's principles. Of any disposition to principles of this nature, Barillon writes, in another letter to we most heartily acquit that right Lewis XIV.-"What your Majesty honourable gentleman. He has too has most besides at heart, that is to say, much knowledge of mankind to believe for the establishment of a free exercise their happiness can be promoted in the of the Catholic religion." On the 9th stormy and tempestuous regions of reof May, Lewis writes to Barillon, that publicanism; and, besides this, that he is persuaded Charles will employ all system of slender pay, and deficient his authority to establish the free exer- perquisites, to which the subordinate cise of the Catholic religion: he men- agents of Government are confined in tions also, in the same letter, the Par-republics, is much too painful to be liament consenting to the free exercise thought of for a single instant. of our religion. On the 15th of June he writes to Barillon-"There now remains only to obtain the repeal of the penal laws in favour of the Catholics, and the free exercise of our religion in all his states." Immediately after Monmouth's execution, when his views of success must have been as lofty as they ever could have been, Lewis writes"It will be easy to the King of England and as useful for the security of his reign as for the repose of his conscience, to re-establish the exercise of the Catholic religion." In a letter of Barillon, July 16th, Sunderland is made to say, that the King would always be exposed to the indiscreet zeal of those who We are afraid of becoming tedious by the enumeration of blunders into which Mr. Rose has fallen, and which Serjeant Heywood has detected. But the burthen of this sole executor's song is accuracy-his own official accuracy and the little dependence which is to be placed on the accuracy of Mr. Fox. We will venture to assert, that, in the whole of his work he has not detected Mr. Fox in one single error. Whether Serjeant Heywood has been more fortunate with respect to Mr. Rose, might be determined, perhaps, with sufficient certainty, by our previous extracts from his remarks. But for some indulgent readers, these may |